company:netflix

  • Data Doubles: Wie Regierungen und Firmen mit unseren digitalen Doppelgängern umgehen
    https://berlinergazette.de/data-doubles-wie-regierungen-und-firmen-mit-unseren-digitalen-doppel

    Algorithmische Staatsbürgerschaft und digitale Staatenlosigkeit: Zum Projekt “Citizen Ex”
    https://berlinergazette.de/algorithmische-staatsbuergerschaft-und-digitale-staatenlosigkeit

    Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht ist eigenartig und komplex, mit einer Reihe von Ausnahmen und Auslassungen, die die gemeinhin gültige Ansicht, dass eine Staatsbürgerschaft im Globalen Norden etwas Stabiles und Absolutes ist, untergräbt. So ist zum Beispiel im Vereinten Königreich die Staatsbürgerschaft erst seit dem frühen 20. Jahrhundert juristisch definiert, und die Geschichte ihrer Definition ist in erster Linie eine des Ausschlusses und der Aberkennung. Denn zunächst trachtete der britische Staat danach, seine Grenzen zu stärken. Danach wurden die früheren (und nun nicht mehr britischen) Untertanen vom Festland vertrieben. Und schließlich “entledigte” man sich jener Menschen, deren scheinbar abscheuliches Verhalten dazu führte, ihnen rechtsstaatliche Verfahren zu versagen. Wie Hannah Arendt in einem berühmt gewordenen Satz sagte: Staatsbürgerschaft sei “das Recht, Rechte zu haben”. Eine Garantie, auf der alle anderen Schutzmaßnahmen beruhen. Daher lohnt es sich, das Staatsbürgerschaftsrecht und seine Anwendungen genauer zu betrachten – als Lackmutest für demokratische Freiheiten.

    Neue Formen der Staatsbürgerschaft im Netz

    Heute gerät das Konzept der Staatsbürgerschaft zunehmend unter Druck. Einer der Orte, an denen man das besonders gut beobachten kann, ist das Internet. Im Netz mit seinen scheinbar grenzenlosen Weiten, fließen Information und Daten fast ohne Einschränkungen über die Grenzen hinweg, von Staat zu Staat. Als Staatsbürger werden unsere Rechte und Absicherungen immer weniger unseren physischen Körpern zugeordnet, sondern unseren digitalen Profilen. Also jenen Datensätzen, die unsere Stellvertreter geworden sind hinsichtlich unserer Beziehungen zu Staaten, Banken und Firmen. Somit entstehen an transnationalen, digitalen Knotenpunkten neue Formen der Staatsbürgerschaft.

    “Ius algoritmi” ist ein Begriff, den John Cheney-Lippold prägte, um damit eine neue, vom Überwachungsstaat hervorgebrachte, Staatsbürgerschaft zu beschreiben.

    Digitale Schnitte: Warum und auf welche Art wir uns von unseren Data-Doubles trennen sollten
    https://berlinergazette.de/warum-wir-uns-von-unseren-data-doubles-trennen-sollten

    Digitale Schnitte können Data Doubles und Datenschatten von verkörperten Subjekten abtrennen oder Schnitte oder Teilungen innerhalb von Data Doubles vollziehen und sie in Datenflüsse verwandeln. Mit dem Konzept der digitalen Schnitte lassen sich sowohl Phänomene beschreiben, in denen diese Aufspaltungen willentlich und wissentlich vonstatten gehen, als auch solche wie die Einspeisung biometrischer Information in Datenbanken der Migrationskontrolle, bei denen von Freiwilligkeit keine Rede sein kann.

    Digitale Schnitte können von menschlichen und nicht-menschlichen AkteurInnen (wie künstlichen Intelligenzen) durchgeführt werden. Mithilfe der Schnitte können Fleisch-Technologie-Informations-Amalgame verschiedenen rechtlichen, technologischen oder biopolitischen Regimen untergeordnet und in deren jeweiligen Logiken weiterverarbeitet werden. Neben landläufigen Akzentuierungen von Hybridität oder Amalgamierung gilt es ebenso zu untersuchen, wo und mit welchen Konsequenzen diese Kopplungen wieder aufgebrochen werden: In manchen Fällen, wie z. B. den quer durch Europa reisenden biometrischen Daten in Hotspots festsitzender MigrantInnen, bleibt mit dem Schnitt eine Referenz auf ein konkretes Individuum erhalten, in anderen, wenn z.B. Potenzialitäten verhandelt werden, ist die Loslösung von konkreten Subjekten programmatisch.

    Antiterrorbekämpfung mittels „risk alerts“ kann hierfür als Beispiel gelten: In deren Rahmen können spezifische Nachnamen, die Religionszugehörigkeit, Sprachkenntnisse oder Reiserouten etc. zu Risikopotenzialen werden. Es sind daher nicht konkrete Individuen, die im Namen von Sicherheit fokussiert werden, sondern fragmentierte Elemente eines angeblichen Risikos. Das potenziell gefährliche, dividuierte Subjekt wird also aus einem Amalgam von Teilelementen anderer Subjekte und Objekte zusammengesetzt, wie Louise Amoore betont.

    In einigen Situationen erweisen sich die Schnittstellen zwischen verkörpertem Subjekt und Data Double gleichzeitig auch als Schnitt-Stelle, als Instanz, die Schnitte durchführt, in anderen – z. B. bei der geheimdienstlichen Überwachung oder der Social-Network-Analyse der Drohnenkriege – haben Interfaces wie soziale Medien selbst wenig mit den Schnitten zu tun. Teilweise liegen agentische Schnitte in der Eigenlogik der jeweiligen Technologien begründet, z. B. entstehen die von Bridle beschriebenen algorithmischen StaatsbürgerInnenschaften aus der Logik des Routings heraus. Ihre Auswirkungen reichen von existenzbedrohenden Einschnitten in die Gestaltbarkeit des einzelnen Lebens bis hin zur banalen Film- oder Produktempfehlung auf Netflix oder Amazon.

    #politique #internet #état #nationalité


  • Is a billion-dollar opportunity “hogging” your bandwidth?
    https://hackernoon.com/is-a-billion-dollar-opportunity-hogging-your-bandwidth-b0c08eecdc0c?sour

    By Joseph FlahertyYesterday, VentureBeat reported that more than 50 billion hours of video games were watched on YouTube in 2018, roughly the same amount of time spent binge-watching the entire Netflix catalog.It’s an extraordinary number and reflects a massive generational shift in pop culture preferences, but what’s even more interesting is how unlikely it seemed a decade ago when the major online video platforms were hostile to video game uploads.In 2008, Vimeo banned video game uploads — outright. In retrospect, this might have been a company defining decision. YouTube hadn’t yet achieved breakout success with the “Lazy Sunday” clip from Saturday Night Live, and was just one of many viable video hosts. Picking up on the popularity of gaming might have changed Vimeo’s trajectory. To be fair, (...)

    #technology #esport #venture-capital #entrepreneurship #startup


  • “The American Meme” Records the Angst of Social-Media Influencers | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-american-meme-a-new-netflix-documentary-records-the-angst-of-social-m

    The new Netflix documentary “The American Meme,” directed by Bert Marcus, offers a chilling glimpse into the lives of social-media influencers, tracking their paths to online celebrity, their attempts to keep it, and their fear of losing it. Early on in the film, the pillowy-lipped model Emily Ratajkowski (twenty million Instagram followers and counting), who first became a viral sensation when, in 2013, she appeared bare-breasted in Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” video, attempts to address a popular complaint raised against social-media celebrities. “There’s the attention argument,” she says, as images of her posing in lingerie and swimwear appear on the screen. “That we’re doing it just for attention . . . And I say, what’s wrong with attention?” “The American Meme” can be seen, at least partly, as a response to Ratajkowski’s question. It’s true that the model, with her superior bone structure, lush curves, and preternatural knack for packaging her God-given gifts into an enticingly consistent product, is presented to us in the limited capacity of a talking head, and so the illusion of a perfect influencer life—in which attention is easily attracted and never worried over—can be kept. (“Privacy is dead now,” Ratajkowski says, with the offhanded flippancy of someone who is only profiting from this new reality. “Get over it.”) But what is fascinating, and valuable, about “The American Meme” is its ability to reveal the desperation, loneliness, and sheer Sisyphean tedium of ceaselessly chasing what will most likely end up being an ever-diminishing share of the online-attention economy.

    Khaled, his neck weighted with ropes of gold and diamonds, is one of the lucky predators of the particular jungle we’re living in, but Bichutsky isn’t so sure whether he’s going to maintain his own alpha position. “I’m not going to last another year,” he moans, admitting that he’s been losing followers, and that “everyone gets old and ugly one day.” Even when you’re a success, like Khaled, the hustle is grindingly boring: most of it, in the end, consists of capturing Snaps of things like your tater-tot lunch as you shout, “We the best.” And, clearly, not everyone is as blessed as the social-media impresario. During one montage, viral figures like the “Damn, Daniel” boy, “Salt Bae,” and “Chewbacca Mask Lady” populate the screen, and Ratajkowski muses on these flash-in-the-pan meme sensations: “In three or four days, does anyone remember who that person is? I don’t know.”

    The idea of achieving some sort of longevity, or at least managing to cash in on one’s viral hit, is one that preoccupies the influencers featured in “The American Meme.” “I’m thirty; pray for me,” Furlan mutters, dryly, from her spot posing on her bare living-room floor. In that sense, Paris Hilton, an executive producer of the film and also one of its subjects, is the model everyone is looking to. Hilton has managed to continue playing the game by solidifying her brand—that of a ditsy, sexy, spoiled heiress. Rather than promoting others’ products, like most influencers, she has yoked her fame to merchandise of her own: a best-selling perfume line, pet products, clothes, a lucrative d.j. career, and on and on.

    #Influenceurs #Instagram #Culture_numérique


  • #algorithms and Data Structures #interview Preparison & Questions — Part 1
    https://hackernoon.com/algorithms-and-data-structures-interview-preparison-questions-part-1-a23

    Algorithms and Data Structures Interview Preparation & Walkthrough — Part 1Finding the first job for a new grad (Source: Sparks Group)Many of new graduates want to knock on the doors of big companies in Silicon Valley such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google and Microsoft. However, preparing for a technical interview is a long and tiresome process. I, myself is also a SW engineer, been there, done that, but still, at some days I will need to face the process again. So I decided to write some articles to remind myself (and you) to get through the process as smooth as possible.Useful ResourcesAlgorithms, Part 1 and Algorithms, Part 2 are two of the most famous free online courses for Algorithms in case you want to refresh your memory.There are two other books I would recommend (...)

    #data-structures #interview-questions #programming


  • What it Takes to Get Certified to Review Code at #google
    https://hackernoon.com/what-it-takes-to-get-certified-to-review-code-at-google-b3ee12314ffe?sou

    What It Takes to Get Certified to Review Code At GoogleMany PullRequest code reviewers have experience at big tech companies, like Facebook, Amazon, or Netflix. The following Q&A with one of our reviewers describes their path to getting their certification to review code at Google called “code readability.”How does code review at Google work?In order to push JavaScript to production at Google, you’re required to have a code reviewer with JS readability to review and approve the code. Readability is an internal certification that shows you understand Google’s coding style and best practices for a specific language. Every CL must be written or reviewed by an engineer with readability in that language. Period.Our team didn’t have a reviewer with readability, so we always needed to ask other (...)

    #code-review-google #code-review #software-development


  • Le Sénat inflige une fessée à Donald Trump
    L’assemble nationale relance le débat sur l’interdiction du désaveu

    Les députés italiens irritent Israël en n’honorant pas une visite promise
    Macron adopte la loi antigivrants souhaitée par Matteo Salvini

    A la frontière mexicaine, l’économie britannique risque de s’effondrer
    Sans accord sur le Brexit, les rêves brisés des migrants de la « caravane »

    Incident en mer Noire : Poutine pèse 300 milliards d’euros
    Les industriels de l’implant parlent d’une « provocation » de Kiev

    Elisabeth Badinter conserve son titre de championne du monde d’échecs
    Magnus Carlsen : « Je ne pense pas qu’on puisse parler librement sur internet »

    Parité : Netflix cible les intercommunalités
    Le haut-Conseil à l’égalité homes-femmes, canal d’émancipation sexuelle en Inde.

    A La Réunion, l’espérance de vie d’Annick a encore baissé
    Les Etats-Unis apportent des premières réponses aux « gilets jaunes »

    #de_la_dyslexie_créative

    Je laisse les antigivrants, création dyslexique du correcteur orthographique


  • Who writes history? The fight to commemorate a massacre by the Texas #rangers

    In 1918, a state-sanctioned vigilante force killed 15 unarmed Mexicans in #Porvenir. When their descendants applied for a historical marker a century later, they learned that not everyone wants to remember one of Texas’ darkest days.

    The name of the town was Porvenir, or “future.” In the early morning hours of January 28, 1918, 15 unarmed Mexicans and Mexican Americans were awakened by a state-sanctioned vigilante force of Texas Rangers, U.S. Army cavalry and local ranchers. The men and boys ranged in age from 16 to 72. They were taken from their homes, led to a bluff over the Rio Grande and shot from 3 feet away by a firing squad. The remaining residents of the isolated farm and ranch community fled across the river to Mexico, where they buried the dead in a mass grave. Days later, the cavalry returned to burn the abandoned village to the ground.

    These, historians broadly agree, are the facts of what happened at Porvenir. But 100 years later, the meaning of those facts remains fiercely contested. In 2015, as the centennial of the massacre approached, a group of historians and Porvenir descendants applied for and was granted a Texas Historical Commission (THC) marker. After a three-year review process, the THC approved the final text in July. A rush order was sent to the foundry so that the marker would be ready in time for a Labor Day weekend dedication ceremony planned by descendants. Then, on August 3, Presidio County Historical Commission Chair Mona Blocker Garcia sent an email to the THC that upended everything. Though THC records show that the Presidio commission had been consulted throughout the marker approval process, Garcia claimed to be “shocked” that the text was approved. She further asserted, without basis, that “the militant Hispanics have turned this marker request into a political rally and want reparations from the federal government for a 100-year-old-plus tragic event.”

    Four days later, Presidio County Attorney Rod Ponton sent a follow-up letter. Without identifying specific errors in the marker text, he demanded that the dedication ceremony be canceled and the marker’s production halted until new language could be agreed upon. Ponton speculated, falsely, that the event was planned as a “major political rally” for Beto O’Rourke with the participation of La Raza Unida founding member José Ángel Gutiérrez, neither of whom was involved. Nonetheless, THC History Programs Director Charles Sadnick sent an email to agency staff the same day: “After getting some more context about where the marker sponsor may be coming from, we’re halting production on the marker.”

    The American Historical Association quickly condemned the THC’s decision, as did the office of state Senator José Rodríguez, a Democrat whose district includes both Presidio County and El Paso, where the ceremony was to be held. Historians across the country also spoke out against the decision. Sarah Zenaida Gould, director of the Museo del Westside in San Antonio and cofounder of Latinos in Heritage Conservation, responded in an email to the agency that encapsulates the views of many of the historians I interviewed: “Halting the marker process to address this statement as though it were a valid concern instead of a dog whistle is insulting to all people of color who have personally or through family history experienced state violence.”

    How did a last-gasp effort, characterized by factual errors and inflammatory language, manage to convince the state agency for historic preservation to reverse course on a marker three years in the making and sponsored by a young Latina historian with an Ivy League pedigree and Texas-Mexico border roots? An Observer investigation, involving dozens of interviews and hundreds of emails obtained through an open records request, reveals a county still struggling to move on from a racist and violent past, far-right amateur historians sowing disinformation and a state agency that acted against its own best judgment.

    The Porvenir massacre controversy is about more than just the fate of a single marker destined for a lonely part of West Texas. It’s about who gets to tell history, and the continuing relevance of the border’s contested, violent and racist past to events today.

    Several rooms in Benita Albarado’s home in Uvalde are almost overwhelmed by filing cabinets and stacks of clipboards, the ever-growing archive of her research into what happened at Porvenir. For most of her life, Benita, 74, knew nothing about the massacre. What she did know was that her father, Juan Flores, had terrible nightmares, and that in 1950 he checked himself in to a state mental hospital for symptoms that today would be recognized as PTSD. When she asked her mother what was wrong with him, she always received the same vague response: “You don’t understand what he’s been through.”

    In 1998, Benita and her husband, Buddy, began tracing their family trees. Benita was perplexed that she couldn’t find any documentation about her grandfather, Longino Flores. Then she came across the archival papers of Harry Warren, a schoolteacher, lawyer and son-in-law of Tiburcio Jáquez, one of the men who was murdered. Warren had made a list of the victims, and Longino’s name was among them. Warren also described how one of his students from Porvenir had come to his house the next morning to tell him what happened, and then traveled with him to the massacre site to identify the bodies, many of which were so mutilated as to be virtually unrecognizable. Benita immediately saw the possible connection. Her father, 12 at the time, matched Warren’s description of the student.

    Benita and Buddy drove from Uvalde to Odessa, where her father lived, with her photocopied papers. “Is that you?” she asked. He said yes. Then, for the first time in 80 years, he began to tell the story of how he was kidnapped with the men, but then sent home because of his age; he was told that the others were only going to be questioned. To Benita and Buddy’s amazement, he remembered the names of 12 of the men who had been murdered. They were the same as those in Harry Warren’s papers. He also remembered the names of the ranchers who had shown up at his door. Some of those, including the ancestors of prominent families still in Presidio County, had never been found in any document.

    Talking about the massacre proved healing for Flores. His nightmares stopped. In 2000, at age 96, he decided that he wanted to return to Porvenir. Buddy drove them down an old mine road in a four-wheel-drive truck. Flores pointed out where his old neighbors used to live, even though the buildings were gone. He guided Buddy to the bluff where the men were killed — a different location than the one commonly believed by local ranchers to be the massacre site. His memory proved to be uncanny: At the bluff, the family discovered a pre-1918 military bullet casing, still lying on the Chihuahuan desert ground.

    Benita and Buddy began advocating for a historical marker in 2000, soon after their trip to Porvenir. “A lot of people say that this was a lie,” Buddy told me. “But if you’ve got a historical marker, the state has to acknowledge what happened.” Their efforts were met by resistance from powerful ranching families, who held sway over the local historical commission. The Albarados had already given up when they met Monica Muñoz Martinez, a Yale graduate student from Uvalde, who interviewed them for her dissertation. In 2013, Martinez, by then an assistant professor at Brown University, co-founded Refusing to Forget, a group of historians aiming to create broader public awareness of border violence, including Porvenir and other extrajudicial killings of Mexicans by Texas Rangers during the same period. The most horrific of these was La Matanza, in which dozens of Mexicans and Mexican Americans were murdered in the Rio Grande Valley in 1915.

    In 2006, the THC created the Undertold Markers program, which seemed tailor-made for Porvenir. According to its website, the program is designed to “address historical gaps, promote diversity of topics, and proactively document significant underrepresented subjects or untold stories.” Unlike the agency’s other marker programs, anyone can apply for an undertold marker, not just county historical commissions. Martinez’s application for a Porvenir massacre marker was accepted in 2015.

    Though the approval process for the Porvenir marker took longer than usual, by the summer of 2018 everything appeared to be falling into place. On June 1, Presidio County Historical Commission chair Garcia approved the final text. (Garcia told me that she thought she was approving a different text. Her confusion is difficult to understand, since the text was attached to the digital form she submitted approving it.) Martinez began coordinating with the THC and Arlinda Valencia, a descendant of one of the victims, to organize a dedication ceremony in El Paso.
    “They weren’t just simple farmers. I seriously doubt that they were just killed for no reason.”

    In mid-June, Valencia invited other descendants to the event and posted it on Facebook. She began planning a program to include a priest’s benediction, a mariachi performance and brief remarks by Martinez, Senator Rodríguez and a representative from the THC. The event’s climax would be the unveiling of the plaque with the names of the 15 victims.

    Then the backlash began.

    “Why do you call it a massacre?” is the first thing Jim White III said over the phone when I told him I was researching the Porvenir massacre. White is the trustee of the Brite Ranch, the site of a cross-border raid by Mexicans on Christmas Day 1917, about a month before the Porvenir massacre. When I explained that the state-sanctioned extrajudicial execution of 15 men and boys met all the criteria I could think of for a massacre, he shot back, “It sounds like you already have your opinion.”

    For generations, ranching families like the Brites have dominated the social, economic and political life of Presidio County. In a visit to the Marfa & Presidio County Museum, I was told that there were almost no Hispanic surnames in any of the exhibits, though 84 percent of the county is Hispanic. The Brite family name, however, was everywhere.

    White and others in Presidio County subscribe to an alternative history of the Porvenir massacre, centering on the notion that the Porvenir residents were involved in the bloody Christmas Day raid.

    “They weren’t just simple farmers,” White told me, referring to the victims. “I seriously doubt that they were just killed for no reason.” Once he’d heard about the historical marker, he said, he’d talked to everyone he knew about it, including former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Mona Blocker Garcia.

    I visited Garcia at her Marfa home, an 1886 adobe that’s the same age as the venerable Marfa County Courthouse down the street. Garcia, 82, is Anglo, and married to a former oil executive whose ancestry, she explained, is Spanish and French Basque. A Houston native, she retired in the 1990s to Marfa, where she befriended the Brite family and became involved in local history. She told me that she had shared a draft text of the marker with the Brites, and they had agreed that it was factually inaccurate.

    Garcia cited a story a Brite descendant had told her about a young goat herder from Porvenir who purportedly witnessed the Christmas Day raid, told authorities about the perpetrators from his community and then disappeared without a trace into a witness protection program in Oklahoma. When I asked if there was any evidence that the boy actually existed, she acknowledged the story was “folklore.” Still, she said, “the story has lasted 100 years. Why would anybody make something like that up?”

    The actual history is quite clear. In the days after the massacre, the Texas Rangers commander, Captain J.M. Fox, initially reported that Porvenir residents had fired on the Rangers. Later, he claimed that residents had participated in the Christmas Day raid. Subsequent investigations by the Mexican consulate, the U.S. Army and state Representative J.T. Canales concluded that the murdered men were unarmed and innocent, targeted solely because of their ethnicity by a vigilante force organized at the Brite Ranch. As a result, in June 1918, five Rangers were dismissed, Fox was forced to resign and Company B of the Texas Rangers was disbanded.

    But justice remained elusive. In the coming years, Fox re-enlisted as captain of Company A, while three of the dismissed lawmen found new employment. One re-enlisted as a Ranger, a second became a U.S. customs inspector and the third was hired by the Brite Ranch. No one was ever prosecuted. As time passed, the historical records of the massacre, including Harry Warren’s papers, affidavits from widows and other relatives and witness testimony from the various investigations, were largely forgotten. In their place came texts like Walter Prescott Webb’s The Texas Rangers: A Century of Frontier Defense, which played an outsize role in the creation of the heroic myth of the Texas Rangers. Relying entirely on interviews with the murderers themselves, Webb accepted at face value Fox’s discredited version of events. For more than 50 years, Webb’s account was considered the definitive one of the massacre — though, unsurprisingly, he didn’t use that word.

    An Observer review of hundreds of emails shows that the state commission was aware of potential controversy over the marker from the very beginning. In an email from 2015, Executive Director Mark Wolfe gave John Nau, the chair of the THC’s executive committee, a heads-up that while the marker was supported by historical scholarship, “the [Presidio County Historical Commission] opposes the marker.” The emails also demonstrate that the agency viewed the claims of historical inaccuracies in the marker text made by Mona Blocker Garcia and the county commission as minor issues of wording.

    On August 6, the day before the decision to halt the marker, Charles Sadnick, the history programs director, wrote Wolfe to say that the “bigger problem” was the ceremony, where he worried there might be disagreements among Presidio County residents, and which he described as “involving some politics which we don’t want a part of.”

    What were the politics that the commission was worried about, and where were these concerns coming from? Garcia’s last-minute letter may have been a factor, but it wasn’t the only one. For the entire summer, Glenn Justice, a right-wing amateur historian who lives in a rural gated community an hour outside San Angelo, had been the driving force behind a whisper campaign to discredit Martinez and scuttle the dedication ceremony.

    “There are radicals in the ‘brown power’ movement that only want the story told of Rangers and [the] Army and gringos killing innocent Mexicans,” Justice told me when we met in his garage, which doubles as the office for Rimrock Press, a publishing company whose catalog consists entirely of Justice’s own work. He was referring to Refusing to Forget and in particular Martinez, the marker’s sponsor.

    Justice has been researching the Porvenir massacre for more than 30 years, starting when he first visited the Big Bend as a graduate student. He claims to be, and probably is, the first person since schoolteacher Harry Warren to call Porvenir a “massacre” in print, in a master’s thesis published by the University of Texas at El Paso in 1991. Unlike White and Garcia, Justice doesn’t question the innocence of the Porvenir victims. But he believes that additional “context” is necessary to understand the reasons for the massacre, which he views as an aberration, rather than a representatively violent part of a long history of racism. “There have never been any problems between the races to speak of [in Presidio County],” he told me.

    In 2015, Justice teamed up with former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Sul Ross State University archaeologist David Keller on a privately funded excavation at the massacre site. He is working on a new book about the bullets and bullet casings they found — which he believes implicate the U.S. Army cavalry in the shooting — and also partnered with Patterson to produce a documentary. But they’d run out of money, and the film was taken over by noted Austin filmmaker Andrew Shapter, who pitched the project to PBS and Netflix. In the transition, Justice was demoted to the role of one of 12 consulting historians. Meanwhile, Martinez was given a prominent role on camera.

    Justice was disgruntled when he learned that the dedication ceremony would take place in El Paso. He complained to organizer Arlinda Valencia and local historical commission members before contacting Ponton, the county attorney, and Amanda Shields, a descendant of massacre victim Manuel Moralez.

    “I didn’t want to take my father to a mob scene,” Shields told me over the phone, by way of explaining her opposition to the dedication ceremony. She believed the rumor that O’Rourke and Gutiérrez would be involved.

    In August, Shields called Valencia to demand details about the program for the ceremony. At the time, she expressed particular concern about a potential Q&A event with Martinez that would focus on parallels between border politics and violence in 1918 and today.

    “This is not a political issue,” Shields told me. “It’s a historical issue. With everything that was going on, we didn’t want the ugliness of politics involved in it.” By “everything,” she explained, she was referring primarily to the issue of family separation. Benita and Buddy Albarado told me that Shields’ views represent a small minority of descendants.

    Martinez said that the idea of ignoring the connections between past and present went against her reasons for fighting to get a marker in the first place. “I’m a historian,” she said. “It’s hard to commemorate such a period of violence, in the midst of another ongoing humanitarian crisis, when this period of violence shaped the institutions of policing that we have today. And that cannot be relegated to the past.”

    After communicating with Justice and Shields, Ponton phoned THC Commissioner Gilbert “Pete” Peterson, who is a bank investment officer in Alpine. That call set in motion the sequence of events that would ultimately derail the marker. Peterson immediately emailed Wolfe, the state commission’s executive director, to say that the marker was becoming “a major political issue.” Initially, though, Wolfe defended the agency’s handling of the marker. “Frankly,” Wolfe wrote in his reply, “this might just be one where the [Presidio County Historical Commission] isn’t going to be happy, and that’s why these stories have been untold for so long.” Peterson wrote back to say that he had been in touch with members of the THC executive committee, which consists of 15 members appointed by either former Governor Rick Perry or Governor Greg Abbott, and that an email about the controversy had been forwarded to THC chair John Nau. Two days later, Peterson added, “This whole thing is a burning football that will be thrown to the media.”

    At a meeting of the Presidio County Historical Commission on August 17, Peterson suggested that the executive board played a major role in the decision to pause production of the marker. “I stopped the marker after talking to Rod [Ponton],” Peterson said. “I’ve spent quite a bit of time talking with the chairman and vice-chairman [of the THC]. What we have said, fairly emphatically, is that there will not be a dedication in El Paso.” Through a spokesperson, Wolfe said that the executive committee is routinely consulted and the decision was ultimately his.

    The spokesperson said, “The big reason that the marker was delayed was to be certain about its accuracy. We want these markers to stand for generations and to be as accurate as possible.”

    With no marker to unveil, Valencia still organized a small commemoration. Many descendants, including Benita and Buddy Albarado, chose not to attend. Still, the event was described by Jeff Davis, a THC representative in attendance, as “a near perfect event” whose tone was “somber and respectful but hopeful.”

    Most of THC’s executive committee members are not historians. The chair, John Nau, is CEO of the nation’s largest Anheuser-Busch distributor and a major Republican party donor. His involvement in the Porvenir controversy was not limited to temporarily halting the marker. In August, he also instructed THC staff to ask the Presidio historical commission to submit applications for markers commemorating raids by Mexicans on white ranches during the Mexican Revolution, which Nau described as “a significant but largely forgotten incident in the state’s history.”

    Garcia confirmed that she had been approached by THC staff. She added that the THC had suggested two specific topics: the Christmas Day raid and a subsequent raid at the Neville Ranch.

    The idea of additional plaques to provide so-called context that could be interpreted as justifying the massacre — or at the very least setting up a false moral equivalence — appears to have mollified critics like White, Garcia and Justice. The work on a revised Porvenir massacre text proceeded quickly, with few points of contention, once it began in mid-September. The marker was sent to the foundry on September 18.
    “It’s hard to commemorate such a period of violence, in the midst of another ongoing humanitarian crisis, when this period of violence shaped the institutions of policing that we have today.”

    In the end, the Porvenir descendants will get their marker — but it may come at a cost. Martinez called the idea of multiple markers “deeply unsettling” and not appropriate for the Undertold Marker program. “Events like the Brite Ranch raid and the Neville raid have been documented by historians for over a century,” she said. “These are not undertold histories. My concern with having a series of markers is that, again, it casts suspicion on the victims of these historical events. It creates the logic that these raids caused this massacre, that it was retribution for these men and boys participating.”

    In early November, the THC unexpectedly announced a dedication ceremony for Friday, November 30. The date was one of just a few on which Martinez, who was still planning on organizing several public history events in conjunction with the unveiling, had told the agency months prior that she had a schedule conflict. In an email to Martinez, Sadnick said that it was the only date Nau could attend this year, and that it was impossible for agency officials to make “secure travel plans” once the legislative session began in January.

    A handful of descendants, including Shields and the Albarados, still plan to attend. “This is about families having closure,” Shields told me. “Now, this can finally be put to rest.”

    The Albarados are livid that the THC chose a date that, in their view, prioritized the convenience of state and county officials over the attendance of descendants — including their own daughters, who feared they wouldn’t be able to get off work. They also hope to organize a second, unofficial gathering at the marker site next year, with the participation of more descendants and the Refusing to Forget historians. “We want people to know the truth of what really happened [at Porvenir],” Buddy told me, “and to know who it was that got this historical marker put there.”

    Others, like Arlinda Valencia, planned to stay home. “Over 100 years ago, our ancestors were massacred, and the reason they were massacred was because of lies that people were stating as facts,” she told me in El Paso. “They called them ‘bandits,’ when all they were doing was working and trying to make a living. And now, it’s happening again.”

    #mémoire #histoire #Texas #USA #massacre #assassinat #méxicains #violence #migrations #commémoration #historicisation #frontières #violence_aux_frontières #violent_borders #Mexique


  • Apparemment, personne n’a relevé ici que Stan Lee est mort. Je vais pas te le reprocher, Seenthis, moi aussi les comics américains à base de super-héros, c’est pas trop mon truc.

    Ado, je suis assez rapidement tombé sur les (désormais classiques) ténors de la BD européenne, alors vraiment, les histoires de Spiderman, déjà dans les années 80, ça faisait un peu pitié.

    Après, je ne suis pas obtus (en fait, si), quand les comics ricains sont devenus à la mode, comme quoi les comics ont changé, que ça devenait un vrai truc adulte, j’ai tenté le coup. J’ai encore ici le Batman d’Alan Moore et Brian Bolland (1988). Je dis pas : c’est astucieusement fait. Mais c’est pas intéressant. C’est certes plus adulte que les trucs d’avant, mais c’est tout de même pas des questionnements bien intéressants. J’ai aussi tenté les Watchmen d’Alan Moore et Dave Gibbons (1986), dont on n’arrêtait pas de me dire que c’est génial. Ben pareil : les super-héros qui doutent, qui se posent plein de question toutes les trois bulles sur le bien-le mal-tout ça, pfff.

    Il y a tout un méta-discours pompeux sur l’intérêt des comics de super-héros, mais vraiment, pfff, c’est jamais intéressant. Sur un mode typique de la vacuité américaine, c’est toujours grandiloquent et totalement con : Spiderman comme image de la différence des jeunes ados gays, Super-Truc comme image de l’épidémie de Sida, etc.

    Je dis pas que c’est pas divertissant, que c’est parfois dessiné avec fluidité. Plus récemment on m’a offert le volume relié des Ultimates de Mark Millar et Bryan Hitch (2002), ça se laisse parcourir sans déplaisir. Mais bon, c’est comme binge-watcher une série sur Netflix : ça passe le temps…

    Voilà. À ton tour, Seenthis, de dire du bien de Stan Lee.


  • https://www.meta-media.fr/2018/11/11/bientot-lere-post-news.html

    Face à un monde de plus en plus complexe et incertain, les gens se replient dans leur bulle. C’est le sacre de la vie privée, nouvelle zone prioritaire à défendre et cœur de la vie sociale. Isolés, ils ne se préoccupent plus que d’eux-mêmes et se déplacent moins. Enfermés dans leurs podcasts, ils attendent, chez eux, leur colis Amazon et ils « bingewatchent » les séries Netflix. Même caricaturale, la description sonne vrai.
    [...]
    Aider à tenter de refaire société est un nouveau et grave défi pour les rédactions et nos nouvelles tribus éclatées. L’information est un bien commun. Y accéder, un droit de l’homme. Mais des communautés solidaires ne peuvent fonctionner que si nous nous sentons aussi connectés à ceux qui ne pensent pas comme nous.


  • Netflix a songé à censurer une scène du film « Girl » pour cause de nudité
    https://www.numerama.com/pop-culture/441419-netflix-a-songe-a-censurer-une-scene-du-film-girl-pour-cause-de-nud

    Le film Girl contient des scènes de nudité. Alors que Netflix négociait pour l’inclure sur sa plateforme, l’une de ces scènes a posé question. Girl, c’est l’histoire d’une adolescente trans de 15 ans, qui cherche à devenir une ballerine. Réalisé par le belge Lukas Dhont, le film a été diffusé pour la première fois en mai lors du festival de Cannes. Dans la foulée, Netflix a entamé les négociations pour le diffuser sur sa plateforme. Mais une scène a posé problème. Comme le rapporte le site Hollywood Reporter (...)

    #Netflix #censure #pornographie #LGBT

    //c0.lestechnophiles.com/www.numerama.com/content/uploads/2018/11/film-girl-une.jpg


  • Netflix Battles Film Director Over Underage Frontal Nudity
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/rambling-reporter/girl-director-sparks-controversy-portrayal-underage-nudity-116239

    Lukas Dhont’s feature directorial debut, ’Girl’ — about a transgender girl training to become a ballerina — wowed Cannes when it premiered in May, but has been the subject of controversy after he said the streamer would edit out a nude scene featuring its star, then 15. Lukas Dhont’s feature directorial debut, Girl — about a transgender girl (played by breakout Victor Polster) training to become a ballerina — wowed Cannes when it premiered in May, picking up a distribution deal with Netflix and (...)

    #Netflix #censure #pornographie #LGBT


  • Le film belge « Girl » censuré par Netflix : « On doit plier parce qu’on a signé un contrat »
    https://www.rtbf.be/info/medias/detail_girl-de-lukas-dhondt-encore-prime-en-europe-et-censure-aux-etats-unis?id

    On l’a appris ce samedi 10 novembre : « Girl », le premier long métrage du Belge Lukas Dhondt, figure parmi les cinq nominés dans la catégorie du meilleur film aux European Film Awards. Le film déjà primé à Cannes fait aussi partie des candidats à l’European Discovery Award, qui récompense le premier film d’un réalisateur européen. Son acteur principal, le Belge Victor Polster, concourra, lui, au titre de meilleur acteur. « Girl », qui fait le plein dans les salles belges depuis sa sortie, sera disponible (...)

    #Netflix #censure #LGBT


  • Cheap Words | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/17/cheap-words

    Amazon is a global superstore, like Walmart. It’s also a hardware manufacturer, like Apple, and a utility, like Con Edison, and a video distributor, like Netflix, and a book publisher, like Random House, and a production studio, like Paramount, and a literary magazine, like The Paris Review, and a grocery deliverer, like FreshDirect, and someday it might be a package service, like U.P.S. Its founder and chief executive, Jeff Bezos, also owns a major newspaper, the Washington Post. All these streams and tributaries make Amazon something radically new in the history of American business.

    Recently, Amazon even started creating its own “content”—publishing books. The results have been decidedly mixed. A monopoly is dangerous because it concentrates so much economic power, but in the book business the prospect of a single owner of both the means of production and the modes of distribution is especially worrisome: it would give Amazon more control over the exchange of ideas than any company in U.S. history. Even in the iPhone age, books remain central to American intellectual life, and perhaps to democracy. And so the big question is not just whether Amazon is bad for the book industry; it’s whether Amazon is bad for books.

    According to Marcus, Amazon executives considered publishing people “antediluvian losers with rotary phones and inventory systems designed in 1968 and warehouses full of crap.” Publishers kept no data on customers, making their bets on books a matter of instinct rather than metrics. They were full of inefficiences, starting with overpriced Manhattan offices. There was “a general feeling that the New York publishing business was just this cloistered, Gilded Age antique just barely getting by in a sort of Colonial Williamsburg of commerce, but when Amazon waded into this they would show publishing how it was done.”

    During the 1999 holiday season, Amazon tried publishing books, leasing the rights to a defunct imprint called Weathervane and putting out a few titles. “These were not incipient best-sellers,” Marcus writes. “They were creatures from the black lagoon of the remainder table”—Christmas recipes and the like, selected with no apparent thought. Employees with publishing experience, like Fried, were not consulted. Weathervane fell into an oblivion so complete that there’s no trace of it on the Internet. (Representatives at the company today claim never to have heard of it.) Nobody at Amazon seemed to absorb any lessons from the failure. A decade later, the company would try again.

    Around this time, a group called the “personalization team,” or P13N, started to replace editorial suggestions for readers with algorithms that used customers’ history to make recommendations for future purchases. At Amazon, “personalization” meant data analytics and statistical probability. Author interviews became less frequent, and in-house essays were subsumed by customer reviews, which cost the company nothing. Tim Appelo, the entertainment editor at the time, said, “You could be the Platonic ideal of the reviewer, and you would not beat even those rather crude early algorithms.” Amazon’s departments competed with one another almost as fiercely as they did with other companies. According to Brad Stone, a trash-talking sign was hung on a wall in the P13N office: “people forget that john henry died in the end.” Machines defeated human beings.

    In December, 1999, at the height of the dot-com mania, Time named Bezos its Person of the Year. “Amazon isn’t about technology or even commerce,” the breathless cover article announced. “Amazon is, like every other site on the Web, a content play.” Yet this was the moment, Marcus said, when “content” people were “on the way out.” Although the writers and the editors made the site more interesting, and easier to navigate, they didn’t bring more customers.

    The fact that Amazon once devoted significant space on its site to editorial judgments—to thinking and writing—would be an obscure footnote if not for certain turns in the company’s more recent history. According to one insider, around 2008—when the company was selling far more than books, and was making twenty billion dollars a year in revenue, more than the combined sales of all other American bookstores—Amazon began thinking of content as central to its business. Authors started to be considered among the company’s most important customers. By then, Amazon had lost much of the market in selling music and videos to Apple and Netflix, and its relations with publishers were deteriorating. These difficulties offended Bezos’s ideal of “seamless” commerce. “The company despises friction in the marketplace,” the Amazon insider said. “It’s easier for us to sell books and make books happen if we do it our way and not deal with others. It’s a tech-industry thing: ‘We think we can do it better.’ ” If you could control the content, you controlled everything.

    Many publishers had come to regard Amazon as a heavy in khakis and oxford shirts. In its drive for profitability, Amazon did not raise retail prices; it simply squeezed its suppliers harder, much as Walmart had done with manufacturers. Amazon demanded ever-larger co-op fees and better shipping terms; publishers knew that they would stop being favored by the site’s recommendation algorithms if they didn’t comply. Eventually, they all did. (Few customers realize that the results generated by Amazon’s search engine are partly determined by promotional fees.)

    In late 2007, at a press conference in New York, Bezos unveiled the Kindle, a simple, lightweight device that—in a crucial improvement over previous e-readers—could store as many as two hundred books, downloaded from Amazon’s 3G network. Bezos announced that the price of best-sellers and new titles would be nine-ninety-nine, regardless of length or quality—a figure that Bezos, inspired by Apple’s sale of songs on iTunes for ninety-nine cents, basically pulled out of thin air. Amazon had carefully concealed the number from publishers. “We didn’t want to let that cat out of the bag,” Steele said.

    The price was below wholesale in some cases, and so low that it represented a serious threat to the market in twenty-six-dollar hardcovers. Bookstores that depended on hardcover sales—from Barnes & Noble and Borders (which liquidated its business in 2011) to Rainy Day Books in Kansas City—glimpsed their possible doom. If reading went entirely digital, what purpose would they serve? The next year, 2008, which brought the financial crisis, was disastrous for bookstores and publishers alike, with widespread layoffs.

    By 2010, Amazon controlled ninety per cent of the market in digital books—a dominance that almost no company, in any industry, could claim. Its prohibitively low prices warded off competition.

    Publishers looked around for a competitor to Amazon, and they found one in Apple, which was getting ready to introduce the iPad, and the iBooks Store. Apple wanted a deal with each of the Big Six houses (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) that would allow the publishers to set the retail price of titles on iBooks, with Apple taking a thirty-per-cent commission on each sale. This was known as the “agency model,” and, in some ways, it offered the publishers a worse deal than selling wholesale to Amazon. But it gave publishers control over pricing and a way to challenge Amazon’s grip on the market. Apple’s terms included the provision that it could match the price of any rival, which induced the publishers to impose the agency model on all digital retailers, including Amazon.

    Five of the Big Six went along with Apple. (Random House was the holdout.) Most of the executives let Amazon know of the change by phone or e-mail, but John Sargent flew out to Seattle to meet with four Amazon executives, including Russ Grandinetti, the vice-president of Kindle content. In an e-mail to a friend, Sargent wrote, “Am on my way out to Seattle to get my ass kicked by Amazon.”

    Sargent’s gesture didn’t seem to matter much to the Amazon executives, who were used to imposing their own terms. Seated at a table in a small conference room, Sargent said that Macmillan wanted to switch to the agency model for e-books, and that if Amazon refused Macmillan would withhold digital editions until seven months after print publication. The discussion was angry and brief. After twenty minutes, Grandinetti escorted Sargent out of the building. The next day, Amazon removed the buy buttons from Macmillan’s print and digital titles on its site, only to restore them a week later, under heavy criticism. Amazon unwillingly accepted the agency model, and within a couple of months e-books were selling for as much as fourteen dollars and ninety-nine cents.

    Amazon filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. In April, 2012, the Justice Department sued Apple and the five publishers for conspiring to raise prices and restrain competition. Eventually, all the publishers settled with the government. (Macmillan was the last, after Sargent learned that potential damages could far exceed the equity value of the company.) Macmillan was obliged to pay twenty million dollars, and Penguin seventy-five million—enormous sums in a business that has always struggled to maintain respectable profit margins.

    Apple fought the charges, and the case went to trial last June. Grandinetti, Sargent, and others testified in the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan. As proof of collusion, the government presented evidence of e-mails, phone calls, and dinners among the Big Six publishers during their negotiations with Apple. Sargent and other executives acknowledged that they wanted higher prices for e-books, but they argued that the evidence showed them only to be competitors in an incestuous business, not conspirators. On July 10th, Judge Denise Cote ruled in the government’s favor.

    Apple, facing up to eight hundred and forty million dollars in damages, has appealed. As Apple and the publishers see it, the ruling ignored the context of the case: when the key events occurred, Amazon effectively had a monopoly in digital books and was selling them so cheaply that it resembled predatory pricing—a barrier to entry for potential competitors. Since then, Amazon’s share of the e-book market has dropped, levelling off at about sixty-five per cent, with the rest going largely to Apple and to Barnes & Noble, which sells the Nook e-reader. In other words, before the feds stepped in, the agency model introduced competition to the market. But the court’s decision reflected a trend in legal thinking among liberals and conservatives alike, going back to the seventies, that looks at antitrust cases from the perspective of consumers, not producers: what matters is lowering prices, even if that goal comes at the expense of competition.

    With Amazon’s patented 1-Click shopping, which already knows your address and credit-card information, there’s just you and the buy button; transactions are as quick and thoughtless as scratching an itch. “It’s sort of a masturbatory culture,” the marketing executive said. If you pay seventy-nine dollars annually to become an Amazon Prime member, a box with the Amazon smile appears at your door two days after you click, with free shipping. Amazon’s next frontier is same-day delivery: first in certain American cities, then throughout the U.S., then the world. In December, the company patented “anticipatory shipping,” which will use your shopping data to put items that you don’t yet know you want to buy, but will soon enough, on a truck or in a warehouse near you.

    Amazon employs or subcontracts tens of thousands of warehouse workers, with seasonal variation, often building its fulfillment centers in areas with high unemployment and low wages. Accounts from inside the centers describe the work of picking, boxing, and shipping books and dog food and beard trimmers as a high-tech version of the dehumanized factory floor satirized in Chaplin’s “Modern Times.” Pickers holding computerized handsets are perpetually timed and measured as they fast-walk up to eleven miles per shift around a million-square-foot warehouse, expected to collect orders in as little as thirty-three seconds. After watching footage taken by an undercover BBC reporter, a stress expert said, “The evidence shows increased risk of mental illness and physical illness.” The company says that its warehouse jobs are “similar to jobs in many other industries.”

    When I spoke with Grandinetti, he expressed sympathy for publishers faced with upheaval. “The move to people reading digitally and buying books digitally is the single biggest change that any of us in the book business will experience in our time,” he said. “Because the change is particularly big in size, and because we happen to be a leader in making it, a lot of that fear gets projected onto us.” Bezos also argues that Amazon’s role is simply to usher in inevitable change. After giving “60 Minutes” a first glimpse of Amazon drone delivery, Bezos told Charlie Rose, “Amazon is not happening to bookselling. The future is happening to bookselling.”

    In Grandinetti’s view, the Kindle “has helped the book business make a more orderly transition to a mixed print and digital world than perhaps any other medium.” Compared with people who work in music, movies, and newspapers, he said, authors are well positioned to thrive. The old print world of scarcity—with a limited number of publishers and editors selecting which manuscripts to publish, and a limited number of bookstores selecting which titles to carry—is yielding to a world of digital abundance. Grandinetti told me that, in these new circumstances, a publisher’s job “is to build a megaphone.”

    After the Kindle came out, the company established Amazon Publishing, which is now a profitable empire of digital works: in addition to Kindle Singles, it has mystery, thriller, romance, and Christian lines; it publishes translations and reprints; it has a self-service fan-fiction platform; and it offers an extremely popular self-publishing platform. Authors become Amazon partners, earning up to seventy per cent in royalties, as opposed to the fifteen per cent that authors typically make on hardcovers. Bezos touts the biggest successes, such as Theresa Ragan, whose self-published thrillers and romances have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. But one survey found that half of all self-published authors make less than five hundred dollars a year.

    Every year, Fine distributes grants of twenty-five thousand dollars, on average, to dozens of hard-up literary organizations. Beneficiaries include the pen American Center, the Loft Literary Center, in Minneapolis, and the magazine Poets & Writers. “For Amazon, it’s the cost of doing business, like criminal penalties for banks,” the arts manager said, suggesting that the money keeps potential critics quiet. Like liberal Democrats taking Wall Street campaign contributions, the nonprofits don’t advertise the grants. When the Best Translated Book Award received money from Amazon, Dennis Johnson, of Melville House, which had received the prize that year, announced that his firm would no longer compete for it. “Every translator in America wrote me saying I was a son of a bitch,” Johnson said. A few nonprofit heads privately told him, “I wanted to speak out, but I might have taken four thousand dollars from them, too.” A year later, at the Associated Writing Programs conference, Fine shook Johnson’s hand, saying, “I just wanted to thank you—that was the best publicity we could have had.” (Fine denies this.)

    By producing its own original work, Amazon can sell more devices and sign up more Prime members—a major source of revenue. While the company was building the Kindle, it started a digital store for streaming music and videos, and, around the same time it launched Amazon Publishing, it created Amazon Studios.

    The division pursued an unusual way of producing television series, using its strength in data collection. Amazon invited writers to submit scripts on its Web site—“an open platform for content creators,” as Bill Carr, the vice-president for digital music and video, put it. Five thousand scripts poured in, and Amazon chose to develop fourteen into pilots. Last spring, Amazon put the pilots on its site, where customers could review them and answer a detailed questionnaire. (“Please rate the following aspects of this show: The humor, the characters . . . ”) More than a million customers watched. Engineers also developed software, called Amazon Storyteller, which scriptwriters can use to create a “storyboard animatic”—a cartoon rendition of a script’s plot—allowing pilots to be visualized without the expense of filming. The difficulty, according to Carr, is to “get the right feedback and the right data, and, of the many, many data points that I can collect from customers, which ones can tell you, ‘This is the one’?”

    Bezos applying his “take no prisoners” pragmatism to the Post: “There are conflicts of interest with Amazon’s many contracts with the government, and he’s got so many policy issues going, like sales tax.” One ex-employee who worked closely with Bezos warned, “At Amazon, drawing a distinction between content people and business people is a foreign concept.”

    Perhaps buying the Post was meant to be a good civic deed. Bezos has a family foundation, but he has hardly involved himself in philanthropy. In 2010, Charlie Rose asked him what he thought of Bill Gates’s challenge to other billionaires to give away most of their wealth. Bezos didn’t answer. Instead, he launched into a monologue on the virtue of markets in solving social problems, and somehow ended up touting the Kindle.

    Bezos bought a newspaper for much the same reason that he has invested money in a project for commercial space travel: the intellectual challenge. With the Post, the challenge is to turn around a money-losing enterprise in a damaged industry, and perhaps to show a way for newspapers to thrive again.

    Lately, digital titles have levelled off at about thirty per cent of book sales. Whatever the temporary fluctuations in publishers’ profits, the long-term outlook is discouraging. This is partly because Americans don’t read as many books as they used to—they are too busy doing other things with their devices—but also because of the relentless downward pressure on prices that Amazon enforces. The digital market is awash with millions of barely edited titles, most of it dreck, while readers are being conditioned to think that books are worth as little as a sandwich. “Amazon has successfully fostered the idea that a book is a thing of minimal value,” Johnson said. “It’s a widget.”

    There are two ways to think about this. Amazon believes that its approach encourages ever more people to tell their stories to ever more people, and turns writers into entrepreneurs; the price per unit might be cheap, but the higher number of units sold, and the accompanying royalties, will make authors wealthier. Jane Friedman, of Open Road, is unfazed by the prospect that Amazon might destroy the old model of publishing. “They are practicing the American Dream—competition is good!” she told me. Publishers, meanwhile, “have been banks for authors. Advances have been very high.” In Friedman’s view, selling digital books at low prices will democratize reading: “What do you want as an author—to sell books to as few people as possible for as much as possible, or for as little as possible to as many readers as possible?”

    The answer seems self-evident, but there is a more skeptical view. Several editors, agents, and authors told me that the money for serious fiction and nonfiction has eroded dramatically in recent years; advances on mid-list titles—books that are expected to sell modestly but whose quality gives them a strong chance of enduring—have declined by a quarter.

    #Amazon


  • Square, Airbnb, And eBay Just Said They Would End Forced Arbitration For Sexual Harassment Claims
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/tech-companies-end-forced-arbitration-airbnb-ebay

    Tesla and Netflix declined to comment. Slack said it was “undertaking a careful review” of its policies. Many major tech companies have long preferred to force employees to settle sexual harassment claims in private arbitration — a policy that shields firms from the embarrassing prospect of workers airing their grievances in open court, and also tends to result in lower-cost settlements. In the past, mandated arbitration has effectively silenced women speaking out about their experiences of (...)

    #Google #Airbnb #eBay #Facebook #Square #travail #harcèlement



  • #Montpellier : Dans la série « Fabre and the city », le musée Fabre fait parler les œuvres
    https://www.20minutes.fr/arts-stars/culture/2366363-20181106-montpellier-serie-fabre-and-the-city-musee-fabre-fait-par

    A l’ère de Netflix, le musée Fabre s’offre une série. Dès vendredi, l’amiral culturel montpelliérain diffusera sur Internet le feuilleton Fabre and the city, une série graphique en sept épisodes où les personnages tirés des œuvres du musée prennent vie.

    La première saison (car il y en aura une deuxième) transporte les spectateurs dans la préhistoire du musée, à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, alors qu’une Société des Beaux-Arts fait ses premiers pas à Montpellier. Accessible gratuitement sur l’application et la plate-forme dédiées, la série propose de se promener à son rythme dans l’intrigue, en balayant son doigt sur l’écran pour faire avancer les péripéties rencontrées par les protagonistes.

    Cépé, l’illustrateur montpelliérain qui a été sélectionné pour dessiner ce projet, a notamment donné vie à des bustes de Voltaire et de Rousseau, à l’Ecorché, imaginé par Jean-Antoine Houdon en 1778, au Vieillard, peint par François-Xavier Fabre en 1784 ou encore la Fillette, inspirée par une œuvre de 1725 de Jean-Baptiste Greuze.

    Le site officiel de la websérie :
    http://fabreandthecity.montpellier3m.fr

    Il y aura aussi (demain) une app de visite géolocalisée en ville, replaçant l’histoire des prémices du musée dans des lieux emblématiques.


  • Ashton Kutcher and Pharrell Williams among Stars and Supporters at FIDF Western Region Gala Chaired by Haim and Cheryl Saban
    https://apnews.com/1a1a0238562c4b93bd1c74b2cb5f5e4e

    For the 12 th year, FIDF National Board Member and major supporter Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, chaired the star-studded gala. Guests included prominent business, philanthropic, and political leaders and celebrated names in entertainment, fashion, sports, and technology, including Ashton Kutcher; Pharrell Williams; Gerard Butler; Andy Garcia; Fran Drescher; Ziggy Marley; David Foster; Katharine McPhee; David Draiman; A. C. Green; Ralph Sampson; Robert Horry; Josh Flag; Israeli actress and star of hit Netflix show FaudaRona-Lee Shim’on; Israeli actor Yaakov Zada Daniel, also of Fauda and an FIDF IMPACT! scholarship recipient; Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles Sam Grundwerg; business magnates and philanthropists Dr.Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson, Serge Azria, and Florence Azria; Managing Member of R.H. Book LLC and Chairman of Jet Support Services Inc.  Robert Book and his wife,  Amy; Founder and President of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein and his wife, Joelle; GUESS Founders  Maurice  and  Paul Marciano; FIDF National Chairman Rabbi PeterWeintraub; FIDF National President RobertCohen; FIDF National Board Member and Western Region President Tony Rubin and his wife, Linda; FIDF National Director and CEO Maj. Gen. (Res.) Meir Klifi-Amir; and FIDF Western Region Executive Director Jenna Griffin.


  • Faire des recherches sur Internet en ligne de commande - Informatique générale - ShevArezo`Blog
    https://blog.shevarezo.fr/post/2018/10/31/faire-recherches-internet-ligne-de-commande

    Lancer des recherches Internet depuis son terminal permet de gagner quelques précieuses secondes et d’être plus efficace. L’utilitaire s permet de s’affranchir d’ouvrir un site particulier et d’ensuite lancer sa recherche. Il le fait pour vous ! Découvrez s et ses fonctionnalités !

    s permet d’effectuer des recherches sur plus de 100 sites ! Parmi eux, on retrouve forcément des moteurs de recherche tels que Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, Yandex, des sites dédiés aux développeurs (codepen, php.net, packagist, python, cplusplus, go, etc...) ou encore AliExpress, Amazon, Wikipedia, Flickr, Reddit, IMDB, Netflix, etc, etc...

    Pour utiliser s, vous devez avoir Go installé sur votre machine.


  • Apple News’s Radical Approach: Humans Over Machines - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/apple-news-humans-algorithms.html

    Apple has waded into the messy world of news with a service that is read regularly by roughly 90 million people. But while Google, Facebook and Twitter have come under intense scrutiny for their disproportionate — and sometimes harmful — influence over the spread of information, Apple has so far avoided controversy. One big reason is that while its Silicon Valley peers rely on machines and algorithms to pick headlines, Apple uses humans like Ms. Kern.

    The former journalist has quietly become one of the most powerful figures in English-language media. The stories she and her deputies select for Apple News regularly receive more than a million visits each.

    Their work has complicated the debate about whether Silicon Valley giants are media or technology companies. Google, Facebook and Twitter have long insisted they are tech entities and not arbiters of the truth. The chief executive of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and others have bet heavily on artificial intelligence to help them sort through false news and fact-based information. Yet Apple has unabashedly gone the other direction with its human-led approach, showing that a more media-like sensibility may be able to coexist within a technology company.

    There are ambitious plans for the product. Apple lets publishers run ads in its app and it helps some sign up new subscribers, taking a 30 percent cut of the revenue. Soon, the company aims to bundle access to dozens of magazines in its app for a flat monthly fee, sort of like Netflix for news, according to people familiar with the plans, who declined to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. Apple also hopes to package access to a few daily-news publications, like The Times, The Post and The Wall Street Journal, into the app, the people said.

    Apple’s executives grandly proclaim that they want to help save journalism. “There is this deep understanding that a thriving free press is critical for an informed public, and an informed public is critical for a functioning democracy, and that Apple News can play a part in that,” Ms. Kern said.

    But there are early signs that Apple is not the industry’s savior. Many publishers have made little on ads in Apple News, and Apple’s 30 percent cut of subscriptions it helps sell does not help. Having experienced Google’s and Facebook’s disruption of their industry, many publications are wary of Apple, according to conversations with executives from nine news organizations, many of whom declined to comment on the record for fear of upsetting the trillion-dollar corporation. Some were optimistic that Apple could be a better partner than other tech giants, but were leery of making the company the portal to their readers.

    The rise of Google and Facebook in news was partly driven by algorithms that provided enormous scale, enabling them to surface millions of articles from thousands of sources to their billions of users. The algorithms were largely designed to keep users engaged and clicking, meaning they tended to promote posts that drew clicks and shares, which often meant the sensational. That elevated fringe and partisan sites that produced intentionally misleading, highly partisan or downright false content.

    (A Google spokeswoman said the company aimed to avoid misinformation by screening publishers before letting them into Google News. She added that Google this year began helping news organizations sell subscriptions. A Facebook spokeswoman said the company helps publishers reach more readers, earn ad revenue and sell subscriptions. She said Facebook’s algorithm recently decreased the visibility of pages that share clickbait.)

    Into that environment came Apple. In late 2015, the iPhone maker released a free news app to match users with publications they liked. People selected their interests and favorite publications, and the app returned a feed of relevant stories.

    The announcement attracted little fanfare. Three months later, Apple announced an unusual new feature: humans would pick the app’s top stories, not algorithms.

    Not all of the stories in Apple News are handpicked. Algorithms still deliver stories based on which new sources or topics users have followed, such as sports, cars or entertainment. Algorithms also pick the five prominent “trending” stories below Ms. Kern’s team’s curated stories. Those items tend to focus on Mr. Trump or celebrities. Making the list on Oct. 2: a People magazine headline reading “Kate Middleton Is Back from Maternity Leave — with a New Haircut and Old Boots!”

    Daniel Hallac, chief product officer for New York Magazine, said traffic from Apple News has doubled since December to now account for nearly 12 percent of visits to the magazine’s website. Traffic from Facebook has dropped about a third, to 8 percent of visits, while Google’s share has increased slightly to nearly half of the site’s traffic. “I’m optimistic about Apple News,” he said.

    But in return for that traffic, publishers are stuck with Apple’s less-than-ideal terms. Apple News readers typically stay in Apple’s app, limiting the data that news organizations learn about them and curbing their ad revenues. Slate reported last month that its Apple News readers had roughly tripled over the past year but that, on average, it earned more money on 50,000 views on its site than the six million views it averaged per month in Apple News.

    Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president who oversees its services push, said publishers can run their own ads alongside their stories in Apple News and keep all of the revenue. “That’s very rare,” he said. He noted most major publishers take advantage of that feature. Apple also places ads for publishers for a 30 percent cut.

    But news publishers said selling ads for Apple News is complicated, and that advertisers’ interest was limited because of the lack of customer data. Slate also attributed its issues to minuscule revenue from the ads Apple placed. Apple recently made it easier for publishers to place their own ads, but Mr. Cue conceded Apple is not terribly good — or interested — in advertising.

    #Apple #Journalisme #Médias #Apple_news #Editorialisation


  • Netflix trompe-t-il ses utilisateurs noirs avec ses vignettes de films « personnalisées » ?
    https://www.numerama.com/pop-culture/433922-netflix-trompe-t-il-ses-utilisateurs-noirs-avec-ses-vignettes-de-fi

    Une abonnée afro-américaine a remarqué que les vignettes personnalisées de Netflix sur son compte personnel mettaient souvent en avant les personnages noirs des films, même quand ils avaient un rôle mineur. Contacté, Netflix se défend de tout calcul démographique. Il s’agit en fait d’un biais de son algorithme, qui n’avait jusqu’ici pas été soulevé. L’algorithme de Netflix induirait-il certains spectateurs en erreur en faisant croire qu’un film contient plus de personnages noirs qu’il n’y en a vraiment au (...)

    #Netflix #algorithme #discrimination

    //c0.lestechnophiles.com/www.numerama.com/content/uploads/2018/10/netflix-tel-pere.png


  • Netflix responds to claims that they changed the artwork of shows based on viewers’ race
    https://www.nme.com/news/tv/netflix-accused-of-deceiving-black-users-with-manipulative-personalised-artwork

    The streaming giant was accused of deceiving black users with ‘manipulative’ personalised posters Netflix has denied changing the artwork for their films and programmes based on a viewers’ race after some claimed they were deceiving black users with the use of ‘intrusive’ and ‘manipulative’ advertising. The streaming platform generates suggestions of TV shows and movies for individual users based on personal viewing habits. Netflix began offering the personalised artwork to users in December (...)

    #Netflix #algorithme #discrimination




  • Netflix : quand la série s’adapte aux goûts du client
    https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/la-fenetre-de-la-porte/la-fenetre-de-la-porte-09-octobre-2018

    #Netflix personnalise le visionnage des séries et des films. Mais avec des fins alternatives, on franchit une étape supplémentaire, puisque l’objet lui-même s’adapte aux goûts du client de Netflix (et on pourrait tout à fait imaginer que bientôt, la plateforme choisisse la fin pour moi, parce qu’après tout, ayant des données très précises sur mon visionnage, elle connaît mes goûts). 

    Si tant est que ce type d’initiative se développe, cela pose question sur la capacité à créer du récit commun. 

    Si on n’a pas vu la même fin de film, la même fin de série, comment on va en parler ensemble ? 

    Comment va-t-on l’interpréter ? 

    Comment ça va nous servir pour nous construire ? 

    Bref, il me semble que ça relève d’une incompréhension assez fondamentale de ce à quoi sert la #fiction

    Personnellement, je n’ai pas envie qu’on me demande de choisir la fin d’une histoire. En matière de fiction, je jouis de me soumettre à l’autorité. Et donc, je me permets ici de prédire solennellement l’échec de cette initiative.

    #personnalisation #black_mirror @xporte


  • Netflix triple ses bénéfices et déjoue les pronostics
    https://www.nextinpact.com/brief/netflix-triple-ses-benefices-et-dejoue-les-pronostics-6007.htm

    Pour son troisième trimestre 2018, Netflix a dépassé toutes les attentes des observateurs, qui misaient sur un ralentissement des recrutements. Le service de vidéo à la demande par abonnement (SVOD) a conquis 7 millions de nouveaux clients, soit un tiers de plus qu’espéré. Cela porte son total à plus de 137 millions de comptes. Dans le détail, Netflix a attiré 1,1 million d’abonnés supplémentaires aux États-Unis, et 5,9 millions de plus dans le reste du monde. Le géant américain n’entend pas s’arrêter (...)

    #Netflix #bénéfices